Calipataa:thamike: neongoats: It sucks too, your average gun show 15 years ago wasn't that crazy or insane an affair. Now? Its basically a white power rally where you can trade a bag of meth for an ar15.

I just went to one in VA. It was the most polite, civil affair I have ever seen. Then again, everyone was armed. It's funny, they're kind of right that if everyone is aware of the real possibility of getting shot, most likely they will be more polite. The problem lies in the fact that that shouldn't be a point of pride.

You know, it's not unlike when Christian fundies say that one can't behave morally without God. Like if you're not afraid of eternal punishment, you'll run amok in the streets. I guess the same goes for us being constantly armed to the teeth - it's the only possible way to remain polite. Otherwise, blammo, we all start attacking each other like fast zombies.

Unfortunately, the sort of person who is only kept from acting savagely by the knowledge that everyone around him is armed is EXACTLY who I do not want carrying a gun.

Uranus Is Huge!:Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.

BTW: You vote? Because there's roughly a 50% chance you'll vote for a Republican for president next time. Statistically, it's true. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.

So, having guns in the house decreases the liklihood of being shot?

That's all I'm asking.

Probably not. I'm betting the vast majority of people, like the vast majority of cops, will ever even be in a situation where a weapon is an issue. So if you have a weapon, your odds of getting shot are probably higher than without.

But I bet for upper-middle-class childless middle-aged white males living in rural areas and don't drink, it's probably far less of an increase than for an impoverished Eastern European immigrant 20-something living in downtown Philly.

DoctorCal:Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.

The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.

Now that's trolling! 100,000 mass shootings prevented EACH YEAR by gun control laws! And there are people who think it's more like 1,000,000! PMROTFLMFAO! How did people ever survive the terrible onslaught of violence that was life before gun control laws?!?

Gothnet:omeganuepsilon: But since you brought it up. You know what is more frequent in most of the rest of the civilized world? Oppression, diminished rights, slavery and even genocide. Women shot in the street..., for dancing, people being stoned to death because they did/didn't have sex in wedlock or more simply just saw too much skin, or showed too much. etc etc etc.

Umm, no actually, those things are not more common in the rest of the civilised world, pretty much by definition, but thanks for playingcalling out a few NRA talking points.

So, what, are Spain(and various other western european countries), the UK, and Canada the only parts of the world that are "civilized"?

The Clackamas Town Center shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

Those are the first two I could think of off the top of my head.

A lady in Colorado Springs stopped a guy from shooting up a church a while back.

feckingmorons:kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.

He was leaving the grocery and ran towards the gunfire. He felt equipped to help someone being robbed, or assaulted or shot because he was on a level playing field. If he just had a carton of eggs and a pack of smokes he probably wouldn't have done that. While he may sound like an internet tough guy in his interview, we can't deny that he ran from the safety of the store to where people were being shot. He put himself in harm's way. Would you do that?

Yes, I am literally correct. My facts are correct, my assertion is valid and supported by evidence. Is there some better way to be correct?

Can't read all the comments, did someone mention to this guy who's proud to carry a lethal weapon for the purpose of antagonizing people (you should be on the poster, buddy) that there were like eight other, unarmed people who didn't need to stop and think about the size of their metal wang before deciding to rush to help someone in need? Including, if memory serves correctly, a fifty- or sixty-year old woman.

Ricardo Klement:Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.

I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.

What it doesn't prove is how much it changes the probability. Do you have numbers to back up your assertion? All you can say is that there are people who are less responsible than you - which does little to tell us whether you are average, safer than average, or a little less safe than average. It's the same problem people have determining whether they are safe drivers. They see that jerkface in the H2 going 110 in the right lane and think, 'well he's a crazy driver - I must be one of the safe ones' and so they rate themselves as safer than average - when in fact, the existence of that crazy guy tells us absolutely nothing about where you stand on the continuum of safe to unsafe. No idea how many gun owners drink. No idea how many of them own pools. Don't know a bunch of other things about your situation, nor do you have a statistical model that shows you where to rate yourself based on these facts. Absent that knowledge, the safest assumption to make is that you're average. We all like to be better than average. On average, we're not.

omeganuepsilon:Gothnet: omeganuepsilon: But since you brought it up. You know what is more frequent in most of the rest of the civilized world? Oppression, diminished rights, slavery and even genocide. Women shot in the street..., for dancing, people being stoned to death because they did/didn't have sex in wedlock or more simply just saw too much skin, or showed too much. etc etc etc.

Umm, no actually, those things are not more common in the rest of the civilised world, pretty much by definition, but thanks for playingcalling out a few NRA talking points.

So, what, are Spain(and various other western european countries), the UK, and Canada the only parts of the world that are "civilized"?

Yeah, none of those brown people countries count at all.

Well for things like public safety, health, etc. some of us like to compare the US to the other industrialized nations. If you want to compare the US to Liberia and El Salvador to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

Statistically there are types of cars that are more likely to be in accidents. Now some of that is due to inherent safety features, breaking distance, rollover, etc. Some of it is because asshole drivers are drawn to faster cars. Making a conclusion about the safety of a car by looking at results that ignore the habits of the driver will give you a bad conclusion.

Saying it makes me less safe, and ignoring any of my habits with the gun only makes sense if you think the gun is more likely to bring harm to my house.

It is always safest to assume you are average, when assessing risk. Most people think they are better than average drivers. Obviously that is not true. Same with responsible gun owners.

You are missing the point. If you are an average driver, you aren't going to do the "asshole" driver things associated with sports cars or other high risk cars that makes them statistically "more dangerous".

You also missed the correlation/causation bit. Having a gun is more dangerous because many of people who live in dangerous places or do dangerous things (criminals) have guns.

Wow, that formatting came out lousy. But I should get to work instead of spending my time fixing it. You get the point. OK Time for me to be productive and stop arguing on the internet. What was I thinking?!

Calipataa:omeganuepsilon: Gothnet: omeganuepsilon: But since you brought it up. You know what is more frequent in most of the rest of the civilized world? Oppression, diminished rights, slavery and even genocide. Women shot in the street..., for dancing, people being stoned to death because they did/didn't have sex in wedlock or more simply just saw too much skin, or showed too much. etc etc etc.

Umm, no actually, those things are not more common in the rest of the civilised world, pretty much by definition, but thanks for playingcalling out a few NRA talking points.

So, what, are Spain(and various other western european countries), the UK, and Canada the only parts of the world that are "civilized"?

Yeah, none of those brown people countries count at all.

Well for things like public safety, health, etc. some of us like to compare the US to the other industrialized nations. If you want to compare the US to Liberia and El Salvador to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

China is industrialized, as are many middle eastern countries...

But, in any case, being industrialized has nothing to do with being civilized, at best is corollary, not causal.

From the wiki on civilization:Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.

So, what, are Spain(and various other western european countries), the UK, and Canada the only parts of the world that are "civilized"?

Yeah, none of those brown people countries count at all.

Well for things like public safety, health, etc. some of us like to compare the US to the other industrialized nations. If you want to compare the US to Liberia and El Salvador to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

China is industrialized, as are many middle eastern countries...

But, in any case, being industrialized has nothing to do with being civilized, at best is corollary, not causal.

From the wiki on civilization:Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.

You see, there's this concept of the 'First World' - otherwise known as developed countries, sometimes referred to as the industrialized nations or post-industrial nations...

Poster was referring to the developed countries - as was I. All countries are civilized in the anthropological sense you are referring to - referring to civilized countries in that sense would mean nothing.

Calipataa:Explain Montana and Alabama versus Massachusetts and New York, if the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths is in fact the correlation between crime rates and gun ownership

A couple points.

Crime rates aren't constant throughout a state.

Household gun ownership is legal ownership.

I am nto sure if that is rifles, shotguns and handguns, or just handguns.

You didn't link crime rates.

You are making the claim that owning a handgun (I am assuming you were talking abotu handguns, dismiss that part if I am mistaken) puts you in more danger. You have to back that up, and to do that you have to account for all the differences in crime rates, and that is only if you are looking at the statistical side.

And that is still ignoring how your personal actions influence how "dangerous" a gun is.

Calipataa:Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.

I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.

What it doesn't prove is how much it changes the probability. Do you have numbers to back up your assertion? All you can say is that there are people who are less responsible than you - which does little to tell us whether you are average, safer than average, or a little less safe than average. It's the same problem people have determining whether they are safe drivers. They see that jerkface in the H2 going 110 in the right lane and think, 'well he's a crazy driver - I must be one of the safe ones' and so they rate themselves as safer than average - when in fact, the existence of that crazy guy tells us absolutely nothing about where you stand on the continuum of safe to unsafe. No idea how many gun owners drink. No idea how many of them own pools. Don't know a bunch of other things about your situation, nor do you have a statistical model that shows you where to rate yourself based on these facts. Absent that knowledge, the safest assumption to make is that y ...

Black people are twice as likely to get lung cancer as Hispanics.

According to you, there's no need to look at the actual smoking statistics. If you're black, you're twice as likely. A non-smoking black man is just as likely to get lung cancer as a smoking black man. Just like a teetotaler with a gun is just as likely as an alcoholic to shoot a loved one accidentally. Right.

According to you, there's no need to look at the actual smoking statistics. If you're black, you're twice as likely. A non-smoking black man is just as likely to get lung cancer as a smoking black man. Just like a teetotaler with a gun is just as likely as an alcoholic to shoot a loved one accidentally. Right.

Read this part again - slowly, if you need to:

No idea how many gun owners drink. No idea how many of them own pools. Don't know a bunch of other things about your situation, nor do you have a statistical model that shows you where to rate yourself based on these facts. Absent that knowledge, the safest assumption to make is that you're average. We all like to be better than average. On average, we're not.

If you have the statistics to show how safe you are, as a non-drinking gun owner on the continuum of safe to unsafe gun owners, show your work. If you do not, the best assumption you can make is that you are average.

According to you, there's no need to look at the actual smoking statistics. If you're black, you're twice as likely. A non-smoking black man is just as likely to get lung cancer as a smoking black man. Just like a teetotaler with a gun is just as likely as an alcoholic to shoot a loved one accidentally. Right.

Read this part again - slowly, if you need to:

No idea how many gun owners drink. No idea how many of them own pools. Don't know a bunch of other things about your situation, nor do you have a statistical model that shows you where to rate yourself based on these facts. Absent that knowledge, the safest assumption to make is that you're average. We all like to be better than average. On average, we're not.

If you have the statistics to show how safe you are, as a non-drinking gun owner on the continuum of safe to unsafe gun owners, show your work. If you do not, the best assumption you can make is that you are average.

You would be right if the risk factors were unknown, or required skill base reactions.

They don't.

It isn't like a car where an 'accident' can happen because of something entirely beyond your control.

'Accidents' with guns only happen when adults choose to do unsafe things.

According to you, there's no need to look at the actual smoking statistics. If you're black, you're twice as likely. A non-smoking black man is just as likely to get lung cancer as a smoking black man. Just like a teetotaler with a gun is just as likely as an alcoholic to shoot a loved one accidentally. Right.

Read this part again - slowly, if you need to:

No idea how many gun owners drink. No idea how many of them own pools. Don't know a bunch of other things about your situation, nor do you have a statistical model that shows you where to rate yourself based on these facts. Absent that knowledge, the safest assumption to make is that you're average. We all like to be better than average. On average, we're not.If you have the statistics to show how safe you are, as a non-drinking gun owner on the continuum of safe to unsafe gun owners, show your work. If you do not, the best assumption you can make is that you are average.

I don't have the statistics of how many black people and hispanic people smoke, either.

But I bet a black non-smoker doesn't have twice the risk of a hispanic smoker. You gonna bet against that?